In absence of definitive proof of income, a notional income can be reasonably fixed by the tribunal, which can be upheld unless deemed arbitrary.

JUDGMENT

T. Amarnath Goud, J. -Heard Mr. K De, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company.

2. This is an appeal filed under Section-173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 read with Section-168 of the Act ibid against the impugned judgment and award dated 29.07.2021 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sepahijala District, Sonamura in case No. T.S. (MAC) 12 of 2019.

3. The facts, in brief, are that on 14.09.2018 at noon about 1700/1430 hours while the deceased Abdul Karim along with his wife Tashlima Khatun i.e. the respondent No. 1 herein, were proceeding towards their house from Sonamura by riding a motor bike bearing registration No. TR01-S-8505 with normal speed left side of Sonamura-Boxanagar road and his wife Taslima Khatun was carrying 16 weeks pregnant. When they reached at N.C. Nagar near the house of one Latif Miah, suddenly one Bus bearing registration No. TR07-1236 was rashly and negligently dashed the said motor bike. As a result, the rider and pillion rider, namely, Abdul Karim and Taslima Khatun received grievous injuries and the said motor bike was damaged.

4. Subsequently, the local people shifted both the injured persons to Sonamura Sub-Divisional Hospital at Melaghar wherefrom both the injured persons were referred to AGMC & GBP Hospital, Agartala for their better treatment. After reaching AGMC & GBP Hospital, Agartala, the attending doctor declared Abdul Karim dead. It has been submitted that the accident took place solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle being numbered TR07-1236 (Bus). According to the respondent No. 1, at the time of accident, the deceased Abdul Karim was serving in a Private Company in Kuwait from 14.01.2014 and his monthly income was Rs. 30,000/- per month prior to accident. It is also stated that on 15.04.2018, the deceased came to his house for 6 months leave and on that period i.e. on 14.09.2018, the accident was occurred.

5. The owner-respondent of the vehicle filed his respective written statement before the learned tribunal denying and disputing all the allegation as made in the claim-petition and also made allegation against each other and stated that at the time of accident the vehicle was insured with the appellant insurance company. As such, if there is any award, that is to be borne by the insurance company. The appellant also contested the case by filing written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition by the claimant-respondents.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that the income as claimed by the claimant-respondent in the claim petition is without any proper documents and identity proof of income which can establish the income of the deceased and without any legal evidence, the tribunal cannot consider the purported monthly income of the claimant-respondent. He has further averred that the claimant-respondent utterly failed to produce any valid document to substantiate the income of the claimant.

7. Mr. De, leaned counsel has further submitted that considering the monthly income of the claimant-respondent, the tribunal below has whimsically presumed the income of the said deceased as Rs. 18,000/- per month and thereby calculated loss of income at Rs. 34,27,200/- though, the claimant-respondent had not provided any evidence regarding monthly income of the deceased. In the award itself, the learned tribunal had clearly stated that in support of income of the deceased, the claimant had not produced any documents before the tribunal below.

8. The learned tribunal after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submis